Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

celebrated for...

The introducion implies that the event is for celebrating the attempt blow up our parliament and King. This is not the case, though it deffinately has been interpreted (wrongly) by a fair number of people. The event commemorates the FAILURE to blow up our King and parliament. Thats why we burn effigied of Guy Fawkes, not effigies of King James. Its why Remember Remember the fifth of November finished with "God Save the King", why it describes how Guy Fawkes was caught in the nick of time "By Gods mercy".== mentioned in movie V for Vendetta == The 5th of novmber is mentioned in the movie V for Vendetta and is very prominate in the movie it probaly should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.228.125 (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Guido Fawkes was a hero and Cromwell was a hero, too! Kings should not exist, dictators should not exist, no person shall be above another! Liberte, egalite, fraternite! 91.82.34.141 (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

But did Fawkes believe in Liberté, égalité, fraternité? And wasn't Cromwell a dictator? Moonraker2 (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

British Protectorates

Changed "British Protectorates" New Zealand, South Africa, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada) to "British colonies"...etc., since the term protectorate was not a correct description of the former condition of these nations/provinces.kuk

Precursor to Guy Fawkes

Bonfire Night didn't just spring into existence in 1605. It was a part of the Hallowe'en celebration that dates back to Celtic times. I don't have enough facts to justify this, except for some web pages that I don't entirely trust, so I will wait for more proof before doing any editing. --Heron 14:08, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, go on. You could at least just state it, that'd be better than what's there currently, right?

"Some believe the nearness of the event to the pre-Christian festival of Samhain Eve and Halloween is significant, but it is generally agreed that this is a coincidence."

I was going to ask what the source was for this 'general agreement'. I remember reading that shortly after the discovery of the plot bonfires sprang up across England. Hard to believe everyone just thought it would be a nice idea!

BBC.co.uk makes reference to the festival's pagan overtones, and I'm sure we could find more evidence elsewhere, but I think we should get rid of the giant, unwieldy Graham Phillips quote. Most of it has little to do with the article and some Holy Blood, Holy Grail type book isn't the best historical source.

I agree. I am printing this entry for an English discussion class but the text on the precurser to Bonfire Night is obviously put in later and doesn't sit well with what comes before and answer. I am taking it out for my class. Can't it go at the end as an extra piece of interest? Tom Nickalls

Well Guy Fawkes Night may not have just sprung into existance in 1605 but the Act of Parliament of 1606 (3 James I, cap 1) entitled ‘An Acte for a publique Thancksgiving to Almighty God everie yeere of the Fifte day of November’ probably helped. The Act remained in force until 1859. [[1]]

As for Samhain, I think you may be confusing a rather quiet spiritual commune with the souls, spirits or whatever, of the departed, for which there already existed 3 celebrations - all hallows eve, all saints day and all souls day, with the modern child centred 'holiday' of halloween.

while looking for references for firework night, I came across this interesting chronology, that may be of interest here [[2]].

I also stumbled across this entry in the parish record for all saints church in hereford dated 1627

mending the chymes; ringing and lights on November fifth; work on the bells; new seats and "reading place"; an hour-glass for the pulpitt; irons for holding the weather-cock; the church coffin 1627; stocks at the High Cross 1627; major repairs to the steeple in 1625; sending back to London a woman with the plague, 1625; sums paid to "the doggkeeper"; payment from the poor box; tenants of "the shop under the church", 1638; payment for ringing the bells on "the Kings Crowne Nation day" 1641; ringing to celebrate "the Scots' overthrow in the North, and the King's victory in the West, 1644; ringing "when Lambert was routed" 1659-60.

hope you find it interesting. 81.102.245.79 23:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I Agree. The term 'Bonfire' originates from Bone Fire and the 'Guy' that is put on the fire is toned-down ritual sacrifice that used to be performed in pre-christian times. Although it is coincidence that 'Guy Fawkes Night' falls at the same time, the festival existed long before the gunpowder plot and was adopted by Puritans to stamp out nasty pagan rituals. I am afraid I have not the patience to look up sources of evidence, but I am sure there are plenty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.194.156 (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Newfoundland Celebration

To the best of my knowledge, the Canadian province of Newfoundland also celebrates Guy Fawkes night (aka Bonfire Night)--the only place in North America to do so. Will find a scholarly citation before adding this to the article proper. --anonymous user, 28 June 2005.

I am from Newfoundland, and it is true we do celebrate Guy Fawkes night. Maybe a line about that should be mentioned in the article? --142.162.204.130 19:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Dating use of Fireworks

Currently in the main article: "In recent years it has also become the primary night for fireworks displays in Britain". Recent years? I can personally testify that's 50 years at least. Anybody know when Guy Fawkes Night also became Fireworks Night? --Stibbs 04Nov05

at christ church, oxford, there are drawings in both the buttery and the graduate common room which depict guy fawkes night in peckwater quad in the 1880s, complete with fireworks. Ptomng 11:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought fireworks dated from ancient China. It is even possible that a form of firework, something like a small bomb that could be fired into the air, was used when Guy Fawkes was burned. pinster2001 @ 31/10/06

Move requested

An uncontroversial move, but I can't do it myself because that page has history. --Quuxplusone 01:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support, just so people don't think that this is unsupported. :-) James F. (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. Dragons flight 22:34, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

i am a recreation director in the Labrador portion of Newfoundsland, each year one of my bigger tasks is to organize a guy fawkes bonfire night...of course not many people know of the gunpowder conspiracy etc...but the bonfire with guy on the to is a huge tradition. we hand out wieners and marshmallows and apples for roasting and juice to drink. the event brings out young and old alike and is a part of our culture.

I am originally from Grand Bank, Newfoundland (Burin Peninsula) and we used to have a massive bonfire on the beach every 5 November for Guy Fawkes night (we usually just called it Bonfire night). There was marshmallows and wieners for roasting, as well has hot chocolate. The town's fire marshall stopped the celebrations for a number of years, but it has since resumed. In my father's home town (Harbour Mille - also on the Burin Peninsula), the kids would collect old barrels, dead spruce/fir limbs (called Fortune screachers) for weeks and light a number of fires so that the entire town would be as light as day. C. Dean Barnes, Montreal

Celebration of several weeks

Hello. The introduction says:

"although in recent years the celebration has spread out to encompass a period of several days or even weeks before or after the exact date."

Is it actually correct to say this? My impression, from New Zealand, is that people aren't always celebrating Guy Fawkes Night simply because they're letting off fireworks. It's more a matter having fireworks available, which they are at that time of year, and setting them off opportunistically. People do let fireworks off on alternative nights because of weather problems, occasionally because the 5th is inconvenient, or maybe just because they like blowing them up and can't be bothered waiting for the official night. As far as I can tell, though, November 5th is still the only time of year that's properly associated with Guy Fawkes celebrations. I've never heard of Guy Fawkes Week or Guy Fawkes Month. Izogi 04:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Definitely, Izogi - you've hit the nail on the head. In the UK, Diwali is also celebrated around this time, also using fireworks, so the fun lasts usually around three weeks or so. There have been kids letting off fireworks just under my flat window for about three hours solid now (and for the last five days or so), and it's still 9 days to the 5th. It's probably more accurate to say they're celebrating the availability of fireworks rather than Guy Fawkes' night :) Natgoo 19:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

On further reading, that whole section seems redundant. Unless someone is willing to provide a compelling argument for keeping it, I'll remove it. Natgoo 19:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

A late note, but it does stretch over a week at least. Many bonfires and public celebrations are held on the Friday or Saturday night closest to the 5th as it is not a public holiday.

To add to the poster above, many Bonfire societies stagger their bonfires around the weekends preceding to November 5th. This is to allow a maximum attendance. It's quite common in the south of England to attend several bonfire nights in one month in several towns and villages. Guy Fawkes night is Nov 5th, Bonfire night for a particular locale can be on any given date the society decides.

The rhyme

Do we need it twice on the same page? Really? Ben-w 08:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I believe that there is a "second agenda" in Guy Fawkes Night, a belief supported by the lyrics of the second stanza:

Supposedly, Guy Fawkes Day/Night celebrates the uncovering of the Gunpowder Plot in 1605 to blow up Parliament and King James I. That day was celebrated for a few years and then died out. In 1689, Protestant Prince William of Orange overthrew Catholic King James II on November 5 (which had earlier been Guy Fawkes Day) to become King William III. The holiday was revived under its original name, although the motive and spirit of the celebration was the Protestant victory over Catholics.

The above quotes only myself composing a letter of factoids for a publisher of books of trivia. Dick Kimball 16:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Numerous variations on the rhyme appear on the net, most of which (like the version in the article) have no source quoted. Clearly any traditional rhyme will have wide variations in the lyrics so how have we got such a definative version?

A quick look through some dated sources give a couple of variations on the first part of the first stanza

Remember, Remember!

The fifth of November,

The Gunpowder treason and plot;

There is no reason

Why the Gunpowder treason

Should ever be forgot!

From: The Book of Days: A Miscellany of Popular Antiquities in Connection with the Calender. By Robert Chambers. Pub 1832 by W & R Chambers Ltd.

Or:

Please to remember the fifth of November

Gunpowder treason and plot;

We know no reason, why gunpowder treason

Should ever be forgot!

From: The Every-day Book: Or Everlasting Calendar of Popular Amusements, Sports, Pastimes, Ceremonies. By William Hone. Pub 1826 by Hunt and Clarke

The next bit runs along these lines:

A stick and stake

For (King James) sake, (alt; King George's or Queen Victoria's)

A stick and a stump

For (old Oliver's) rump (alt; Guy Fawke's)

The second verse doesn't appear in any books I could find, but was published in two seperate letters to a magazine

A rope, a rope, to hang the pope,

A (penn'orth) of cheese to choke him, (alt; pound)

A pint of beer to wash it down,

and a jolly good fire to (roast) him (alt; burn)

From: Notes & Queries (magazine) December 19 1908

The rhyme then ends (with or without the second verse)

Holla Boys! Holla Boys! (Make) the bells ring (alt; let)

Holla Boys! Holla Boys! God save the (King) (alt; Queen)

Hip! Hip! Hip! Hooray!

Mighty Antar 02:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Can we clear up that elementary school scansion of the poem? First of all, I don't think it's necessary, in large part because of reason #2: It's completely wrong. The first line is composed of four amphibrachs (u / u) while the 2nd line is 2 amphibrachs followed by an iamb. Therefore, since the scansion is off-base so, too, is the analysis of why this is so. This section either needs to get corrected or eliminated (the preferable solution, imo). Jcanker (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Canada?

I'm from Canada, have lived in every part of it except Newfoundland and can report that it is not a holiday and not celebrated. Should also point out that the way the line reads ( ...South Africa Newfoundland, Canada) is a bit confusing since Newfoundland is a province of Canada. An analogy might be coming across a list like " New Zealand, Lancashire, South Africa, England" or "New Zealand,Wisconsin, South Africa, U.S.A";

(PRedfern writes:) The analogy is not quite correct since Newfoundland & Labrador did not join the Canadian Confederation until 1948. Until then Newfoundland was a separate colony/dominion within the British Empire. Until 1948 indeed, Newfoundland & Labrador was Britain's oldest N.American colony. After 1948, it was Canada's youngest province.

That history of independence (Newfoundland - Canada's Texas?!!) presumably would also explain why, if a tradition of celebrating Guy Fawkes/Bonfire night was established there, that tradition would not necessarily extend to any of the other Canadian provinces (Quebec especially!).

USA??

I am 76 years old, and have lived in New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, California, and Washington. I have, or had, relatives living in South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Illinois, and Maryland. I have never heard of Guy Fawkes Night being celebrated anywhere in the USA. But I may be wrong. If no one can provide more information, I plan to correct the article. Too Old 16:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Checkout The Center For Fawkesian Pursuits

Thanks to Jooler, who inserted the above reference. I had already found out that, because of the English backgrounds of many of the early colonists, Guy Fawkes Night was widely celebrated in the colonial period. It also has been adopted in some areas as an excuse for a bonfire and a party. Never too old to learn. Too Old 18:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Too Old, I can confirm that it celebrated to a small degree in New Orleans, where it is referred to simply as "Guy Fawkes Day" and lasts for 24 hours from the stroke of midnight until it technically becomes the 6th the next day. It's worth adding, I think, but unfortunately it is impossible to source anything because revelers are notoriously secretive- Guy Fawkes day in New Orleans is seen as a day that nothing you do "counts" and in fact "never happened".

As i just put in the discussion for Gunpowder plot- Guy Fawkes Day is celebrated yearly in Westerly, Rhode Island.

Removed the small section on "Modern USA" in Global customs - the events described were very isolated, quite recent, and frankly insignificant except to the school or group practicing them. They cannot be classed as customs. They do not belong in an encyclopedia, that's for sure. 128.232.110.231 (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Waste of time

I spent some time removing the stale, clichéd American bollocks (proximity, primary night, blah blah) from an article on a British topic, but it's all back again. Another good example of what's wrong with Wikipedia -- its tendency to revert to the lowest common demoninator -- is this sentence:

"Some believe the proximity of the event to the pre-Christian festival of Samhain Eve and Halloween are notable, but it is generally agreed that this is a coincidence."

How many people have edited the article w/o spotting that the verb doesn't agree with its subject? And when someone finally corrects it, the mistake is back within the day. Hopfrog 12:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Hopfrog has inserted an all-too-common sample of British snobbery. (The Brits -- or at least their "nobility" -- seem to have invented snobbery.) I note above that I have recently learned that Guy Fawkes Night was celebrated during the American colonial period, and is, in fact, also part of American tradition, partly because of predjudice against [Irish] Catholics in the USA in times gone by. As for grammatical errors (note the disparity between the singular "it's" and the plural antecedant "bollocks" above) such persnickety pettifoggery is simply rude (another British specialty). Too Old 19:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Bollocks, (in the context of nonsense rather than testicles), like like money and news is singular, when the plural is required, one might same something like "what a load of bollocks" Jooler 19:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Point taken, Jooler. Too Old 22:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Is there correlation between Dumbledore’s phoenix Fawkes and Guy Fawkes? My reasoning is that J. K. Rowling is from England and must know about the fifth of November, and since the man tried to set fire – or destroy – the parliament, so I though, knowing about that story, that it would make a nice name for the phoenix. (Speculation here, not sure of it all, and my memory is hazy). Someone else sees something here? mandragorae 20:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

JKR is from Scotland, not England. :p But being thus British, she indeed named Fawkes for Guy Fawkes. (I'm from England if anyone's wondering.) -- Korax1214 (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

JKR indeed lives in Edinburgh but she was born and grew up in England - Gloucestershire I think - but I think she self describes as British 86.163.120.167 (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

J. K. Rowling definitely knows about Bonfire Night, since she mentions it in the first chapter of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Seems pretty clear to me that the phoenix was named after Guy Fawkes. Pruneau 16:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the reference here simply because it is a reference to Guy Fawkes rather than Guy Fawkes night, and thus is already noted on the Guy Fawkes page. In addition, I have also removed some of the other pop culture references - if we mentioned every reference to Guy Fawkes Night ever made in pop culture the list would go on for ever. My feeling is that the only references that should be included on this page are works in which Guy Fawkes Night is central to the plot/song/whatever. Hence - a Simpsons episode that revolves around Guy Fawkes Day: yes. Bart mentions Guy Fawkes day in passing: no 195.97.248.74 16:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Jack Presbyter

It seems like the Tory response to the Guy Fawkes effigy - Jack Presbyter - should be included in the article. I'm not sure where, though.

Vandalism?

"For centuries, live cats were tied up and placed in the interiors of the effigies to make desirable sound effects as they burned. The practice of including cats is long discontinued." That was added on 22 Jan 06 by 207.200.116.133. Checking edits by that IP address a day either side of that date show a mixture of good edits and clear vandalism. So I'm deleting it until somebody produces evidence. --Farry 20:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I've heard that in a lecture but I don't have a source. --Jordansc 04:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted "Guy Fawkes night (AKA ... Epic Fail Night)" considering that epic fail is something very modern, and i doubt that any person would name it that, i deleted it. Also i found a section that says "some people dont burn his effigy, especially people from his old school." i dont know if this is actually true, or an "old School" refernce so im going to leave it for anyone who actually knows to edit it. 199.111.179.139 (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Found "Epic Fail Guy Night" on the Headlining photo caption... deleting it (too cute... Nov 5) --71.207.224.186 (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Safety Concerns

The section on Safety concerns is presumably specific to the United Kingdom. However, this is not explicitly stated. While I agree that there are probably common concerns in all the places that celebrate with fireworks, the section is more about one country's reaction to those concerns. In New Zealand, one issue is that of personal injury from irresponsible use, while another issues is the threat to public safety as a result of either accident or abuse causing wildfires and property damage. Here the reaction has been the banning of the sale of sky-rockets and crackers, along with a call for the prohibition of all fireworks for personal use. I understand that the similar concerns lead to the banning of fireworks in the state of Victoria, in Australia, 20 years ago, but as ACT and Northern Territory still celebrate, interstate fireworks smuggling is a concern there. I think the Safety concerns section needs clarification as it is currently misleading. There possibly also needs to be a section about legislative controls that covers what may be sold in which countries and when fireworks may be used. -- Cameron Dewe 21:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Fireworks only used in the weeks before since 2000? Do we have a source for this? Secretlondon 21:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Cut and paste removed

I've taken out the following passage which somebody has just lifted from the "TVNZ" website:

"On the 29th of October 2006, a week before Guy Fawkes Night and a few days after fireworks had been put on sale in New Zealand, the NZ Fire Service had already had enough. Fire stations across the North Island have been inundated with calls resulting from the reckless use of pyrotechnics. It seems fireworks lovers around the wider Auckland region have had the greatest number of mishaps. Fire Service spokesman Steve Smith says there were two hours of non-stop fireworks call-outs between 9pm and 11pm on Saturday night. Fire stations servicing the Central North Island also reported dangerous use of fireworks, including several skips and letterboxes being set alight. The Fire Service wants fieworks to be banned."

It also seems to adopt the tone of somebody with an axe to grind and lacks any kind of balance.

Everything gone?

Where has everything gone. There is no information on this article? pinster2001 @ 30/10/06

Accurate title

I am doubtful that we have the best title for this article. I have never heard this called 'Guy Fawkes Night' or indeed 'Fireworks Night'. Having lived in a number of places across the UK I have almost always heard this called 'Bonfire Night', except in northern England where it can be referred to as 'Plot Night'. What do others think (especially those from CA, Au & NZ)?

- I agree, never heard of it being referred to as 'Guy Fawkes Night' always 'Bonfire Night' or 'Bommy Night' Boothuk 12:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

- In Scotland its widely known as Guy Fawkes Night, so the title is just right as far as we are concerned Scancoaches 12:15 6 November 2006 (UTC)

- In my experience "bonfire night" is more common, but "Guy Fawkes Night" does not sound particularly odd, so I see no real need for change. Alihaig 14:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

My preference would be to move the page to Bonfire Night. That gets 894,000 Ghits [3]; Guy Fawkes Night gets only 276,000 [4]. However, Bonfire Night is currently a disambiguation page for several festivals, so a move would involve a bit of faffing around. DWaterson 22:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The title is really counterintuative - in the vast majority of the UK the 5th November is always referred to as "Bonfire Night"

Historically it was Guy Fawkes Day or Gunpowder Treason. It was a public holiday in the UK from 1606 to 1859 and was marked by the church with a special form of prayer to be given on November 5th.

Although fireworks were used to commemorate the event from an early stage, the bonfire night and firework night titles only became more significant after the public holiday was dropped and the night-time celebrations became the main point of significance\.

As bonfires were common at almost all celebrations until the 18th-19th century, Bonfire Night would not have automatically meant a bonfire on November 5th and the disambiguation page for Bonfire Night shows that this is still an issue. Firework Night is really a 20th century term that has come into popular useage as fireworks have become easier and cheaper to obtain and people have come to think of them as an essential part of the event. Here are some links to some historical sources [[5]], [[6]], and a link with historical source information [[7]]. I'd stick with Guy Fawkes Night as it is distinct and there is no way easy way of ensuring all the Google hits for Bonfire Night refer specifically to November 5th. Mighty Antar 10:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

ACT

There is a link when talking about the banning of fireworks in Australia to "ACT" but this is just a huge disambiguation page, could someone clear up the link so it points to the correct article? Alihaig 14:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Baked Potatoes

Is it really nessecary to mention baked potatoes? They are not exclusive to bonfire night and are only provided because they are easy to cook outside and are good warming food on a cold night. They have the same significance as burgers or sausages which are not mentioned here. Alihaig 14:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No they do not have the same significance as burgers!! Baked potatoes are traditionally baked in the bonfire, while "burgers" are just American convenience foods having no cultural connection! 62.253.48.73 22:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say they're quite a key thing, but perhaps there could just be a sentence mentioning that warming food is particularly popular on the night - such a burgers, hot dogs, baked fruit and veg, soup etc.

80.229.16.243 20:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

NT

I am concerned with the accuracy of this article in relation to Australia. We still use fireworks in the Northern Territory every July 2nd to celebrate our independence from the other states. I believe but can not be certain that it is an extension of Guy Fawkes Night just given a new moniker to justify its relevance to Australia.

I used to celebrate Guy Fawkes Night in Melbourne. It was always on the 5th of November. Territory Day (the celebration of self-governance, not independence) has no connection with Guy Fawkes night and has only been around since 1978. I also corrected your spelling. ~ Brother William 10:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

American Revolution

One thing that is important to bring up but I don't have the time to ellaborate is the fact that Guy Fawkes Day was a holiday in the US whose organizational mechanisms was used to begin proto phase of the American revolution in 1765,in the US it was a holiday the poorer classes used to express their frustrations in society it was a wide scale relflection of a class struggle mentality against the elites that had risen beyond the normal stations of society. The organzation of the festiveties lead to the destruction of homes of prominent British loyalists in Boston. The violence had a repose for a couple years after the British repealed the Stamp act in 1766 until of course the major phase of the revolution began a few years later.

The celebration in 18th century America is well documented here- http://mysite.verizon.net/cbladey/guy/html/usaplot.html It was known at first as Pope's Night and was celebrated by all classes- people could drift from one celebration to the other but generally as follows-

-Apprentices and others street festivals, processions, bonfires -Masters and aristocracy- dinners, parlor events with mummers coming in to entertain, view of street activities. -Government Officials-dinners, loyal toasts in the center of authority castles, fortifications, on board ships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.68.23 (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Traditional Rhymes

Where on earth has the version of the traditional rhyme shown on the page come from. Numerous variations appear on the net as 'The Rhyme' most of which (like the version in the article) have no source quoted.

I propose to substitue the following unless a definiative source is given:-

From: The Book of Days: A Miscellany of Popular Antiquities in Connection with the Calender. By Robert Chambers. Pub 1832 by W & R Chambers Ltd.

Remember, Remember!

The fifth of November,

The Gunpowder treason and plot;

There is no reason

Why the Gunpowder treason

Should ever be forgot!

Or:

From: The Every-day Book: Or Everlasting Calendar of Popular Amusements, Sports, Pastimes, Ceremonies. By William Hone. Pub 1826 by Hunt and Clarke

Please to remember the fifth of November

Gunpowder treason and plot;

We know no reason, why gunpowder treason

Should ever be forgot!

The second part of the first stanza runs along these lines:

A stick and stake

For (King James) sake, (alt; King George's or Queen Victoria's)

A stick and a stump

For (old Oliver's) rump (alt; Guy Fawke's)

The second verse doesn't appear in any books I could find, but was published in two seperate letters to a magazine From: Notes & Queries (magazine) December 19 1908

A rope, a rope, to hang the pope,

A (penn'orth) of cheese to choke him, (alt; pound)

A pint of beer to wash it down,

and a jolly good fire to (roast) him (alt; burn)

The rhyme then ends (whether sung with or without the second verse)

Holla Boys! Holla Boys! (Make) the bells ring (alt; let)

Holla Boys! Holla Boys! God save the (King) (alt; Queen)

Hip! Hip! Hip! Hooray! Remember remember the fifth of November Gunpowder, treason and plot. I see no reason why gunpowder, treason Should ever be forgot...

Clearly any 'traditional' rhyme spread by word of mouth will have wide variations in the lyrics, but for a topic as popular as this one, we could at least aim for something with a historical source. Mighty Antar 17:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A definitive collection of Chants a.k.a. Bonfire Prayers has been published by Hutman Productions and is available here. http://mysite.verizon.net/cbladey/bonbook.html

Many of the variants are to be found here- http://mysite.verizon.net/cbladey/guy/html/verse.html

Since 1695 world views have changed and such change is reflected in the variations found in the chants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.68.23 (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Are the annotations on the ryhme based on the Chambers source? because some of them seem highly suspect, particularly the one claiming the pope verse is unique to Lewes. 92.238.128.101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC).

Hollow Men

The "Hollow Men" segment is completely wrong (but actually right in a roundabout way). The poem was actually referencing the novel Heart of Darkness, which, in turn, referenced Guy Fawkes. The "Mistah Kurtz" is Kurtz from the novel, and the reference in the poem is simply just an homage to the original novel. User: Brentkc49 10:13, 28 October 2007

Remember remember the fifth of November Gunpowder, treason and plot. I see no reason why gunpowder, treason Should ever be forgot... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.64.195 (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Remember remember the fifth of November Gunpowder, treason and plot. I see no reason why gunpowder, treason Should ever be forgot... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.64.195 (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Night Header Content Biased

The opening of the Guy Fawkes Night page claims that Guy Fawkes Night celebrates the foiling of an plot...This is only partly true. In some parts it does celebrate the foiling of the attack, but in others it celebrates the attempt itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.230.114.118 (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Almost nobody (including myself) knows what exactly was oiginally being celebrated - whether Guy Fawkes attempt or his capture - its just a reason for some winter excitement, especially for children. Also, any political or religious significance it may have once had has now been completely forgotten. 62.253.48.73 22:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Is citation needed for everything? Including toffee apples?

I don't understand why a citation is needed to show that toffee apples are eaten. Do we need citations for such widely known facts? I mean, if we're going to be that petty, why don't we say a citation is needed to say that it's on 5 November, and another to show that it happens every year... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.145.111 (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm with you. Some people go a little citation-happy on Wikipedia. Some things just are, whether doctoral dissertations are written about them or not. Harukaze 15:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's partly down to me... Originally there was just one "citation needed" for the whole foods section, but when I added in a reference for parkin, I moved separate ones onto all of the other foods with no citation yet.

And not everything in that section is "widely known". For example, I have never ever heard of people eating black peas with vinegar (which User:Dunc1971 added yesterday) ... Clearly, there is some regional variation, so how would someone from another region - or even another country - know whether something is true, without a source?

I know the article is currently full of "citation needed" markers, and that they look annoying, but one of those markers was the only reason I went to chase up the parkin newspaper article I'd read the day before. And surely there are two solutions here: to take the citation markers out, or to find citations! ;) KittyRainbow 15:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've now found and added some sources about these traditional foods - all except for groaty pudding, which I just could not find anything on. (Oh, and I also found a source that says it happens every year on November 5...! ;) ) KittyRainbow (who apparently spends all of her time winking) 17:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You can't quote a Guardian (or any other newspaper) article as factual source (esp. one that suggests Fawkes was burned at the stake!), or can you? ;) 20.133.0.14 13:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well unless they've invented a time machine, The Guardian is clearly not a primary source for this!! XD But as a source that says in modern times, we a) celebrate Guy Fawkes Night every year, and b) do so on the 5th November... well, maybe. Not that I really think we need a source for that, I was just being silly. KittyRainbow 14:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

personal i celebrate guy fawkes night as celebrating the attempt not the foiling of the plot. me and my friends call it blow shit up day.

State legislation

I think the main article should at least mention the important position held until 1859, in which year considerable changes were made to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. By state legislation, celebrations on 5 Nov were mandatory. The church service (Happy deliverance of Parliament from Gunpowder and Treason)for that day was the chief focus, and was part of the State Services in the Book of Common Prayer from 1605 to 1859. Innovations such as guys,wheelbarrows and collecting pennies, bonfires, masks, and (last of all) fireworks were later additions to enhance for children the solemnity of this day of thanksgiving.By 1859, the reign of George IV and some unpopular parliamentary legislation had no doubt convinced the populace that the decapitation of monarchs (the service for the deliverance of Charles II was also abolished) and the entering of parliament with honest intentions were perhaps not always necessarily deplorable activities.Colcestrian 20:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sales of Fireworks banned in New Zealand!

I have changed the section about the Southern Hemisphere, announcing the ban of the sales of fireworks in New Zealand, deleting all about the fireworks except Helen Clark's comment about the bad behaviour of youths with fireworks.

"In New Zealand,the sale of fireworks have recently been banned, as on Guy Fawkes Night 2007, there were many "little" accidents, including a child being badly burnt, and a house being burnt down.Helen Clark, the Prime Minister considered banning fireworks in New Zealand earlier in 2007 'if New Zealanders "behave badly" on Guy Fawkes night this year.'"

---

Should this change stay, or will it be edited? Please decide for me wether we should edit this text, and me it more specific. Thin Smek 22:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmn, maybe Bonfire Night is not celebrated in countries where they have wooden houses, for obvious reasons. 62.253.48.73 22:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently they are still for sale [8] Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Google co uk does not celebrate Bonfire Night

...while at the same time subjecting people in the UK to lots of American festivals that mean nothing to us. 62.253.48.73 22:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Night is celebrated in an episode of Mulberry starring Karl Howman as the "Son of Death". They stuff a guy and put him atop a large bonfire, eat sausages and baked potatoes and set off fireworks. The series ran for two seasons beginning in 1992. Lovely British comedy. 70.105.110.128 (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Beverly Davis

Penny For the Guy

I don't know about anyone else, but on my observation this (former?) custom seems to have died out, at least in London.

Possible reasons are (1) the fact that there are too many beggars these days, giving rise to general distaste for the practice; or parental concern for the safety of their children, leading to banning of customs/practices which are seen as risky or possibly so. Maybe other reasons as well.

Perhaps those who are better researchers than I could look into this and work it into the article. -- Korax1214 (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Inflation, maybe? A penny isn't worth the metal it's stamped on, and you can't exactly go around asking for £1.50 for the guy, can you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.105.105 (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Political significance forgotten etc

As Americans have got English children and their parents to do Trick Or Treating in the last few years, then I think Americans ought in return to be encouraged to celebrate Bonfire Night. Note to retailers - its another excuse to sell more stuff. So I would like to mention that the political and/or religious significance of it has been forgotten, in case the US is held back from spending money because they think its some heavy political/religious thing. Children and most adults have only a hazy idea of what its about - its just a excuse to let off fireworks. In urban areas, as soon as it gets dark on the 5th., it is as if World War III had broken out, with fireworks and bangs going off almost non-stop all evening. I think a year or two ago I did see some children asking "Penny for the guy", but its very rare. This decline is probably due to how children sadly have all their leisure time closely controlled and supervised by adults nowadays, rather than being free to wander the streets and fields and woods as we did when I was a child. See Richmal Crompton's Just William stories for what it was like in those halcyon days. I see that one place in the US celebrates Bonfire Night - but its rather perverse that they celebrate it in October rather than the correct date. The point of bonfire night is that it is cold - you wrap up well around a large bonfire, the bigger the better, and as well as the fireworks and sparklers, eat food often cooked on the bonfire, such as baked potatoes etc. Mulled wine for the adults if you are posh. Unfortunately the US bonfire website does not have an email address for me to set then right. 89.243.83.43 (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Australia related content innacurate

I don't know who added the content about "Bonfire Night" (?) in Australia, but it's so wrong it should just be scrapped. "Guy Fawkes" night it was in Queensland until bans on fireworks effectively ended it practice. It was also on the anniversary, and was not moved around to avoid bushfire season. It still is, although it is not really practiced (due to the bans). Maybe the "Australian" content refers specifically to some location within Australia but as none of it is sourced, it's hard to tell, and it certainly doesn't refer to Queensland.LowKey (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• I grew up in Sydney, and certainly remember Bonfire Night celebrations being organised by my primary school in the mid-to-late 1980s. Bans on fireworks I seem to remember coming in during the late 1980s or perhaps early 1990s. The text about it all fizzling out in the 1970s seems wrong to me. 81.2.120.180 (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• I agree, I grew up in Newcastle and we celebrated it well into the 80's at least. The article is correct in saying it was the ban on private sale of fireworks that killed it off though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.107.105 (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this wrong?

Under Southern Hemisphere it says 'Bonfire Night/Guy Fawkes Night (and the weekend closest to it) is the main night for both amateur and official fireworks displays in the UK and New Zealand.' - should it be changed to Australia and New Zealand? Little Miss Queen Of Darkness (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

UK content

As Bonfire Night is largely a British custom, I'm surprised at the lack of coverage of the festival in Britain here. There is more on New Zealand than Britain. It's interesting to compare the article with that for Halloween which correctly explains it in terms of its American roots and widespread practice there, and then describes its export to other countries. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur. It strikes me as rather strange to read about (what I thought was largely a) UK custom, but then only finding information about its celebration outside of the UK. Niels^{? en | nl} 23:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

South Africa/Southern Hemisphere

A contradiction of intent exists between the South Africa section and the Southern Hemisphere section. The South Africa section says this is widely practiced, while the Southern Hemisphere section notes that it fizzled out. 142.221.110.4 (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some improvement is definitely needed there. Firstly, since there is already a section on South Africa it is not necessary to mention it again in Southern Hemisphere. Secondly, as the above comment says, the two sections say the exact opposite about Guy Fawke's Night in South Africa today, therefore, THIS ARTICLE CONTRADICTS ITSELF. I don't know what the truth is and I hope that someone knowledgeable about South Africa can correct it.Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I see the South Africa part has been moved from "Southern Hemisphere" but still THIS ARTICLE CONTRADICTS ITSELF. There are two parargraphs saying that Guy Fawkes Night is very popular in South Africa followed by another that says it isn't popular anymore. I still hope that someone knowledgeable about South Africa can sort this out.Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Night food

I grew up in what was North East Cheshire (now part of Greater Manchester) and the traditional way to end the night was always a potato pie supper with pickled red cabbage or beetroot. Can anyone find a reliable reference to support this, which I believe was common throughout the North West and Yorkshire. All I can find is hundreds of adverts for bonfires mentioning that they are serving potato pie at the event; but none for the tradition itself, other than a few mentions on bulletin boards. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Source now found from Bolton. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Guy Fawkes Night Celebrations

It would be interesting if someone could write something about alternative 'Anarchist' November 5th celebrations. For example, instead of attending a firework display, me and my pals got together and watched V For Vendetta this evening --Jackster (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I did that and went to some fireworks. Anarchist or not, fireworks are fun! -mattbuck (Talk) 00:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Celebrating a terrorist?

I wonder when they'll start celebrating 9/11. Osama bin Laden Night? Al-qaida Night? --88.112.227.227 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's celebrating the fact that it didn't work!!!! Not that he was a terrorist! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.8.105 (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

alot of people celebrate the fact that he tried, he's something of a folk-hero - hence he is celebrated as the "only man to ever enter parliment with honest intentions". 92.238.128.101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC).

The Republican party in America is obviously using a "Remember November" slogan because they want to succeed in overthrowing what they regard as a tyrannical administration, not because they hope to fail.

Relationship to Samhain

I know about the establishment of a formal holiday to celebrate Guy Fawkes night post-1605 - but I'm surprised that there is no recognition in this article of the fact that celebrations around that time of year long predate that period. The article on Samhain specifically refers to bonfires, etc., and I'm sure that copious refs could be found to attest to the fact that there is likely to be a relationship betwen the two. I know that Samhain relates to Halloween, and there is a difference of a few days between the two, but that is insignificant taking into account past changes in the calendar. I've added a link to Samhain under "See also", but I'm minded to find refs to justify including a new para in the text to refer to this relationship. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice one! - I have to say I wasn't convinced at first, but a quick search of Google books comes up with a lot of references for this. Just go to http://books.google.com/ and type "Guy Fawkes Samhain" in the search box - you'll find a lot of references you won't find with a normal google search that way. One of the better hits is here - it even says that burning "the old guy" on a bonfire pre-dates Guy Fawkes. As it was your suggestion I'll let you have the pleasure of adding it in :-) Richerman (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to say I'm going to be fairly busy off-wiki in the next few days, so if someone else wants to go ahead that's fine with me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

OK I'll add something in. Richerman (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Politics or religious aspect not known to most people

It ought to be pointed out that almost nobody celebrating Guy Fawkes Night has any idea about the religious sect of those involved, and that now its just a welcome excuse for innocent winter fun and fireworks. It is also a shame that it has become eclipsed by the great rise in the celebration of Halloween (previously not celebrated at all) due to supermarkets trying to sell us more stuff and American tv fodder. 92.29.121.183 (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Catholicism is hardly a religious sect, it's a large part of Christianity - in fact, it's the original form of Christianity. The point about Guy Fawkes night being about a Catholic plot is historical and has mostly faded from memory but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned. And as for Halloween not being celebrated in the UK - that's complete bollocks. When I was a kid in the 1950's we made jack-o'-lanterns from large swedes (the vegetable not the people!) and played traditional games such as apple bobbing. Trick or treat is an American import in the UK, but it is actually based on traditions brought over to the US from Europe. Richerman (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

See below. I and my friends certainly never celebrated Halloween. 92.15.0.50 (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The mention of Catholics should be removed as is not relevant

The article is about Bonfire Night, not about the Gunpowder Plot. The great majority of people who celebrate it have no idea of the details, only that it was something about trying to blow up parliament. Conspirators being Catholic or not is not relevant to Bonfire Night, and is covered by the Gunpowder plot article. Mentioning Catholics makes it seem like an anti-Catholic demonstration, which it is not. So the mention of the conspirators being Catholic should be removed. I did remove it, but someone put it back again. Sorry I'm wondering if that editor is anti-catholic. 92.15.0.50 (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you should try assuming good faith rather than guessing at other people's motives and making a personal attack. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to educate and there is no censorship on wikipedia so your edit got reverted. Bonfire night started out as an anti-catholic celebration but thankfully we've moved on. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't report the history of how we got here. Richerman (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Groves Accidental Tourist: Remember, remember . 3 October 2010 "THE English, in polite company, prefer these days to refer to November 5 as Bonfire Night. But among their children, patriotism still trumps politeness." -- PBS (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

South Africa

I have added a {{Unreferenced section}} to the South African section because we have two unsourced paragraphs that make contradictory statements. "Guy Fawkes is widely celebrated in South Africa. ..." and "Guy Fawkes day was celebrated to some extent by South Africans of British descent, but the practice began to dwindle by the 1960s." We need some sources and a rewrite of this section. -- PBS (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

A Google search on [firework night Johannesburg site:za] returns a number of pages here are two official:

• Here is an source on the official website of the city of Johannesburg by Nomalizo Xabana Heed fireworks by-laws, dated 5 November 2009.
• Here is another November Fireworks days (Guy Fawkes – 5 Nov and Diwali – 9 Nov) Statement on official Fireworks policy of City of Johannesburg Issued by: Cllr Tim Sargeant DA Council Spokesperson on Environmental Matters ""Fireworks Month" (November) is around the corner and the annual Johannesburg fireworks noise frenzy is about to affect every resident of the City as well as their pets and other suburban animals and birds." (my emphasis)

A Google search on [firework night Durban site:za] returns a number of pages

• an interesting one is a casulaty list which indicates that most fireworks let off on a causal basis are at the New year. But there is also a report of accidents on 5 November HARSH REALITIES Reported South African fireworks-related trauma and accidents eg "Port Elizabeth area: Eight dogs died and more than 60 were reported missing after fleeing in terror from suburban Guy Fawkes firework displays. The eight dogs that had died had been run over by cars after fleeing from areas where fireworks were exploding."
• With a large Indian population Durban has a fireworks display for the FNB Durban Diwali Festival ( 9 November) provided by India Fireworks. So it looks that Durban is rather like Jo'burg, but I would guess with the large Indian population there with more emphasis on the 9th.

A Google search on [Guy Fawkes Cape-Town site:za] returns lots of pages

• City appeals to residents to ensure an accident-free Guy Fawkes
• Guy Fawkes In Cape Town on 5th November This one has pictures.

-- PBS (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

no links to wikiquote or V for Vendetta

This is an FA so I'm hesitant to do this myself, but there's no link to wikiquote page for Guy Fawkes which I think there should be. Also, I know that V for Vendetta is linked to from the Gunpowder Plot in popular culture page but I'm wondering if it should also be here, in the see also section or something. 76.171.22.15 (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Linking to presbytery

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Articles generally ought not to link directly to disambiguation pages - so the ambiguity in "barricade himself in the presbytery" needs to be resolved. Clearly, Presbytery (residence) is meant. There is no place in a Presbytery (architecture) in which to barricade oneself. If the priest happened to be there, it would say he was barricading himself in the church. A brief perusal of the diagram ont he latter page will indicate that this is merely a matter of common sense. StAnselm (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

That may be so, but accusing an established editor of vandalism - particularly the one who got this article to FA - is an insult. And you should certainly not have put a vandalism template on his talk page in the middle of what is clearly a minor content dispute. Richerman (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Adding 116 extraneous spaces with no reason given sounds like vandalism to me. In any case, I have added the disambiguating link back in, since no-one can seem to offer a a reason against having it. StAnselm (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like vandalism to me. Many people find double-spaced text easier to read, and were taught to type that way. That HTML has a limitation in being unable to display the double-spacing to WP readers doesn't alter the fact that those editing the text may find it easier to read. Eric Corbett 01:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to keep this article as a double-spaced article if there is consensus to do so - but that should be clearly marked for potential editors. Certainly single space is the wikipedia standard, and that is enforced in the article's appearance. I thought I was improving the article by removing extraneous bytes, and I was reverted without a reason given. StAnselm (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Minor but important point - the MediaWiki software ignores extra spaces like this. View in edit mode to see my point.--ukexpat (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

An experienced editor might presume that another experienced editor, when writing this article, was unable to resolve this problem and so left the text intentionally vague. The source does not say whether he barricaded himself in the church or a separate building and it is therefore incorrect for you to make this change. And the double spacing is most certainly there for a reason, which is to help me edit. I have difficulty making sense of text without these spaces. Parrot of Doom 08:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

As I noted above, it appears that there is consensus to keep the double spacing, and I am content to drop the issue. The presbytery disambiguation is quite another matter, however. You can't barricade yourself into a chancel unless you move a whole lot of pews. It's clearly the house that is meant. StAnselm (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The reference in footnote 42 of the article says (in the paragraph above the one that uses the word "presbytery"), But within two years anti-Catholic riots in Ipswich led to the clergy being imprisoned in their homes for two days and a night. StAnselm (talk) 08:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"You can't barricade yourself into a chancel unless you move a whole lot of pews" - and how do you know that isn't what happened? The source is ambiguous, therefore, we must be. If you want to confirm what really happened, find another source that elaborates. Parrot of Doom 09:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

How is that ambiguous? There is a summary statement about the clergy being barricaded in their homes, and then there is a paragraph that elaborates, and talks about the curate barricaded in the presbytery. It's clearly his home that is meant. I can't believe you can't see it, and I'm very sorry that I got you offside on this, because it really appears to me that you don't want to see it. StAnselm (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

But the BBC article is specifically about the church - and it says in the subheader "A church in Ipswich has survived riots,...". The BBC article does not appear to about the whole church complex - just the church itself. A person from the church specifically says "A mob went through the town smashing Catholic-owned businesses and headed for the church which led to the curate Father Patrick Rogers barricading himself in the presbytery for two days." ... if I had just that information - I'd say it was in the church. It's the very bit you cite that makes it unclear. The BBC article conflicts with the other article - thus the reason for the DAB link instead of a more specific one. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Catholic presbyteries were generally attached to (or very close to) churches, because of the requirement for regularly saying mass. Per this source, the phrase "the presbytery of St. Pancras Church" refers to the residence of the priest. -- 101.119.14.145 (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

While the riot took place shortly after 5 November, no sources make it explicitly clear that it was exclusively to do with Guy Fawkes (although the timing is probably no coincidence). In fact, The Manchester Guardian of 9 November 1863 seems to be more concerned with freedom of speech and Mayoral corruption than any anti-Catholic sentiment. And it makes no mention of any barricading, rather, it talks about attacks on the Mayor's house, the "Tower Parsonage" and an attempted assault on the Temperance Hall. So this section's removal is quite warranted. Parrot of Doom 12:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

One of sources has the riot beginning on 5 November, 1863. -- 101.119.15.128 (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

This source from Suffolk County Council says "the ‘Anti Popery' disturbances in Ipswich in November 1863 [...] followed the Gunpowder Plot commemorations and coincided with the salacious anti-catholic lectures given by Andre Massena." -- 101.119.15.128 (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Disambiguating presbytery link

Should the presbytery link in the article be disambiguated to Presbytery (residence) (which redirects to rectory) or should it be left ambiguous? 20:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Posted notifications at the Christianity and Disambiguation WikiProjects. StAnselm (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• Disambiguate: This source says "But within two years anti-Catholic riots in Ipswich led to the clergy being imprisoned in their homes for two days and a night" and the elaborates on that in the next paragraph, which says in part, "The then curate, Father Patrick Rogers, barricaded himself in the presbytery for two days and nights until the mayor was able to enrol 200 special constables and restore order." Clearly, the priest's home is meant by the word "presbytery". StAnselm (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• See my above point about the other source from the BBC - which mentions nothing about residences and is solely about the church. The sources disagree - so we shouldn't choose one over the other without further sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think they disagree at all - the BBC article has as a tagline "A church in Ipswich has survived riots" and then says "A mob went through the town smashing Catholic-owned businesses and headed for the church which led to the curate Father Patrick Rogers barricading himself in the presbytery for two days." There is nothing here that is inconsistent with the priest barricading himself in his own home, which presumably is next to the church. The mob marched towards the church, and he locked himself in his home. I agree that it might not be totally clear from the BBC article, but the other source makes it clear, and they don't contradict each other. StAnselm (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• The sources appear to have no better idea of what exactly is meant by presbytery in this context that we do, so perhaps a short note might be in order rather than a link? The note could include links to both possibilities. Eric Corbett 21:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Disambiguate to the residence. It is quite obviously improbable that the sanctuary of the church is meant. older ≠ wiser 21:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not sure which page it should be disambiguated to, but as a general rule we shouldn't be linking to disambiguation pages from articles (unless it's in the hatnotes and we're letting them know it's a disambiguation page). ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• The simple thing to do would be to remove the link altogether. But that doesn't generate lots of drama, does it? Parrot of Doom 22:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, people would be left wondering, "What's a presbytery?" StAnselm (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

What is a presbytery anyway? Is there a 2-3 word description we could use in its place and avoid using the word altogether? ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of the issue here. We could quite easily say "barricade himself in his house" but that is what is in dispute. The reliable sources say "presbytery", and I think it means the priest's house. StAnselm (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I still stand by not linking to disambig pages, so if forced to choose a link, I'd have to choose the residence (or as Nikimaria suggested, Wiktionary). ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Disambiguate to Presbytery (residence), which is obviously what is meant here, and which (outside of specialised discussions of Architecture or of the Presbyterian Church) is in fact the most common meaning of the word [9]. -- 101.119.15.143 (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• Use a transwiki link to Wiktionary instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Per this source, the "presbytery" at St. Pancras Church is clearly the priest's house, and Presbytery (residence) is therefore the appropriate thing to link to. I'm not sure why some editors are trying to create an air of mystery about what "presbytery" means. It's a perfectly cromulent word. -- 101.119.15.35 (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Um.. no. All it proves is that there was a residence at the church. Does not mean that there wasn't also a presbytery in the church - it's perfectly possible for there to be both in a group of church buildings. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• No, that source proves that the phrase "the presbytery of St. Pancras Church" refers to the residence of the priest. In any case, the other usage of "presbytery" is (1) very rare ("chancel" or "sanctuary" are usually used) and (2) ruled out by the fact that you can't "barricade yourself" in that part of a church. Take a look at the diagram: -- 101.119.15.35 (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Don't you know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source ;-)? The source used at Presbytery (architecture), and other sources on that topic, make it clear that the area can in fact be enclosed, and so theoretically someone could barricade themselves within. Now, I agree that the other meaning is more likely, but as it's not certain (and I'm not an RS on the topic), to link only the other would be original research. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• You're kidding, right? The source cited above proves that the phrase "the presbytery of St. Pancras Church" refers to the residence of the priest. And the other use of "presbytery" to refer to the chancel of a church has been obsolete for at least a century. -- 101.119.15.35 (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: If anyone has access to the Times Digital Archive (subscriber only) use this link. There's also articles in the (subscriber only) Gale 19th Century British newspapers database about it from Nov 1863. Basically, the well known anti-Catholic speaker Baron de Camin was due to give a lecture on Guy Fawkes night and the Police refused to let him for fear of trouble (Irish Catholic soldiers from the 18th Hussars, stationed in town, weren't happy about his talk). A mob went and smashed the windows of Mayor's house. The following night they let de Camin speak, and afterwards the mob reformed and broke the windows of the Catholic priest's home (Father Kemp) and then of the Church, the school, scared the nuns (Police were protecting most places) then back to Kemp's to throw more stones. (There's no mention of a 'curate Father Patrick Rogers') While it was clearly anti-catholic, and took place (partly) on that day, none of the newspaper accounts I've read mention the significance of Guy Fawkes. (Obviously, it would have had some but the 1/2 dozen sources I've read don't seem to think its worth mentioning in 1863). AnonNep (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Go and do something useful

All this fuss over a disambiguation link, a "problem" resolved by removing the link entirely. And now, the editor who most wants to solve this by inferring something the sources don't appear to suport, is battling to keep the argument going by reverting edits that have removed the "offending" section completely. Who the shuddering fuck cares about a stupid link, other than people with too much time on their hands but not (apparently) enough to write anything meaningful?

Some may have noticed that I haven't written anything for some time now. This is exactly the kind of wooden-headed ignorant stupidity that keeps me away. I added the original material, I added the disambiguation link (because I researched the subject and was unable to clarify the matter) and I entirely support Ealdgyth's removal of it. Parrot of Doom 11:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a breach of WP:CIVIL here. And a rather childish "if I can't get my way on a minor point, I want to have a whole section deleted" that seems rather like WP:POINT. -- 101.119.14.242 (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just seen on your talk page that you explicitly disown WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL. I don't think Wikipedia benefits from people who can't play nicely with others, because Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise. -- 101.119.14.242 (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You are a hypocrite and a prime example of the stupidity I so despise. Parrot of Doom 12:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You are free to despise me, but might I suggest that if you choose not to follow WP:CIVIL, which is one of the five pillars, then the project is better off without you. -- 101.119.14.13 (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

So what's your excuse for staying? After all, you also ignore your precious civility policy. Parrot of Doom 12:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe you're the only person here swearing. -- 101.119.15.128 (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You think civility is limited to bad words? You truly are stupid. Parrot of Doom 12:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. An anonymous hypocrite with only 11 edits to his name citing the five pillars is rather revealing I think. Eric Corbett 15:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what dynamic IP addresses are. StAnselm (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You presume too much grasshopper. Eric Corbett 20:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal: to revert on the basis of a "wrong" citation style is just plain silly when there are many other footnotes with that style already in the article. To remove content as a way of solving the dispute under discussion is also silly. StAnselm (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

There are not any other citations with that style AFAICS, and since the material is not central to the article removing it seems a valid option. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly not central, but I think it is useful. I'm not totally use what "that style" is. Looking at all the footnotes, most of them have the [Last name, date, page number] format. Footnote 4 has [first name, last name, title, etc.] while footnote 13 has [last name, first name, title, etc.] It's the latter I was thinking of (along with 65, 67, 68, etc.) when I talked about other footnotes in the article. In any case, the article does not have a consistent style. StAnselm (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

There's one hand-coded that needs to be fixed; other than that, all full citations except yours are {{citation}}, while yours is {{cite}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I was just using the "cite book" template on the drop-down menu. Should I be doing it some other way? StAnselm (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There are various drop-down menus, but the ones I've tried only supported the "cite" family templates (cite book, cite web, cite journal, etc.). {{Citation}} is different in that it figures out from the various parameters that are included and omitted whether to cite it like a book, journal, etc. Most of the parameters are the same, and there is a good chance it will work if you just change "cite book" to "Citation" (but be sure to look at the result carefully before finalizing the edit). Jc3s5h (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

To be precise, that odd one (in ^[43]) uses {{cite book}}, not {{cite}}. {{Cite}} would have been acceptable, because it's a redirect to {{citation}}. This means that if you have selected {{cite book}} from a menu and filled in the parameters, you can easily switch it to the preferred style for this article by removing the word book before saving - it works without further amendment because {{citation}} recognises virtually all of the parameters recognised by {{cite book}} - the few exceptions are not offered by reference menus anyway.

I notice that nobody has mentioned that {{cite book}} is used 10 other times, all of these being under Further reading. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I had noticed, yes, and I agree that these bone-headed discussions can be very wearing. Why don't these people go write something themselves instead of trying to make life a misery for everyone else? Eric Corbett 15:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, that is simply not a civil comment. I suggest that you withdraw it. Obviously, it's going to be difficult to find out what the dynamic IP 101.119.xx.xxx has written; my content contributions can easily be assessed with a glance at my user page. StAnselm (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Like PoD, I really don't give a fuck what you think. Eric Corbett 20:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Still awaiting answer...

To the question of why removing the specific incident in Ipswich isn't a valid option? It's not really needed in the context of the paragraph - it's just an illustrative example that isn't required here. Removing it would solve the problem and resolve the issue. But no one seems willing to say why they insist on the link to presbytery (residence) MUST stay in this article along with the incident in Ipswich? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it has to stay in. I have objections to removing content just to resolve a dispute, and would prefer to let the presbytery discussion play out first. But it is clearly one example of many in a fairly long paragraph. If it's remove - what happens to the next sentence - "Gradually, however, such scenes became less popular." That sounds like it's referring to the Ipswich incident, although it could make sense following straight after the Exeter effigies incident. StAnselm (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I would certainly strongly support the Ipswich section staying in. It's a well-documented example of the sometimes violent anti-Catholic protests that were once a part of Guy Fawkes Night. I don't think it's a good idea for Wikipedia to try to "sanitize" history. -- 101.119.15.242 (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The Ipswich incident was about anti-Catholic fervour caused by a radical preacher. It just so happened to coincide with 5 November. It's synthesis to say the two were related and therefore, as it doesn't really add all that much anyway, I say remove it. And I say that as the person who put it there to begin with. Parrot of Doom 23:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It "just so happened to coincide with 5 November." Really? Guy Fawkes night often included anti-Catholic protests that could turn violent, and this is one example. That side of the event should not be airbrushed out. -- 101.119.14.109 (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it does look like User:JASpencer added it first. StAnselm (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess it's that long since I wrote this article I forgot what I did and did not add. This news actually makes me feel much better about the whole thing. I should have investigated the addition properly, when it first came into being, but truth be told I've had little to no interest in this place lately (a result of being accused of plagiarism at an FAC). Thank you for clarifying this. Parrot of Doom 00:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"I guess it's that long since I wrote this article" PoD you did not write the article it existed before you modified it. -- PBS (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Not again.... Returning to the actual topic at hand, I agree that the passage should be removed, as it doesn't really contribute to the reader's understanding of the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what the link you provided meant to show other than the article should not have become a Featured Article in its current state. -- PBS (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this one will be more illuminating. Richerman (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

What exactly do you think that has to do with me pointing out to PoD that his statement "I guess it's that long since I wrote this article" is inaccurate? -- PBS (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

As your pointy statement was off-topic to begin with and this digression even more so, let's leave it at that. Do you have any opinion on whether or not the passage in question should be included in the article? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• I count three for removal and one for retaining the Ipswich section. Given the information gleaned from further investigation of the sources (discussed elsewhere in this page), I have removed it. Parrot of Doom 13:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I had no view on the issue when I protected the article, but having read through the discussion since lifting the protection I agree with removing the sentence - it added little if anything because this incident (it seems) was not discussed by secondary sources in the context of 5th November activities generally but it was mentioned primarily, if not only, in the context of the Ipswich church. It may be best off mentioned in the article about the church, but this article cannot possibly mention every 5th November episode or protest over the centuries. Bencherlite^Talk 13:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Citation style

Since this edit in 2008 the article has used the {{Citation}} template to give full information about sources. By 2010 the harvnb template was used to make short footnotes, which in turn refer to the full citation in the bibliography (this saves space by not writing out the full citation each time the same source is used to support multiple statements). The article has evolved to the point that nearly all the citations are short footnote, and the article would be easier to read and maintain if the exceptions were migrated to the dominant style. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think reverting an edit on the basis on the "wrong" style is a good idea. StAnselm (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

So... someone else has to fix your citation that you agree isn't in the right style? As an aside, I'm not sure why it's so vitally important that this bit of information stay in the article - several folks have offered a couple of different compromises - but those have been rejected. Granted, another source was added - but why is this information so important that it MUST retain the link to the actual wikipedia article on the residence form of presbytery - rather than removing the detailed information or linking to the wiktionary definition? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I was agreeing that harvnb is the best style to decide on - I will be happy to change the reference I added (once protection is lifted) and I think we can all chip in and fix the others. But when someone else comes along and adds content with the "wrong" reference format, changing it ourselves, or making a polite suggestion on the talk page are both preferable to reversion. In response to the aside, I am all for removing the the word "presbytery" and replacing it with "his house". StAnselm (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

But the sources are NOT clear (no matter what you may think). You said above "Well, that's kind of the issue here. We could quite easily say "barricade himself in his house" but that is what is in dispute. The reliable sources say "presbytery", and I think it means the priest's house." Any time you say "I think it means" - you're verging into OR territory. You're not sure it's the house, the sources aren't clear, and in all honesty - the incident is not needed in the article at all. It's the only post-1850 incident mentioned in the article - it's not clear from the sources that it's tied to the restoration of Catholic bishops specifically, and the simple solution is to remove the specific incident in Ipswich. I'm not sure WHY it's so important to retain this incident here. The article would not be hurt by losing it - and it would solve the problem as a compromise. Why do you insist on keeping the information in the article? I THINK the sources are not clear that the house is meant - it's likely, but it's not totally clear and when we aren't totally sure, we can't engage in OR. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"Fix the others" - nothing needs fixing. The format is simple - harvnb for a book, citation for anything else. That's it. But if you want to change it then bear in mind you'll also have to change every article in this page too. And you can be certain I'll object at every stage. Parrot of Doom 22:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Using the wrong citation style is not grounds for removal of content. We should encourage consistent style, but removing sourced content because you don't like the style is not within policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The original removal of content was because the sources given didn't mention any connection with Guy Fawkes Night for the incident. It was returned to the article with another source given (a primary source from a diary for that date) that still didn't really tie the information to GFN. PoD's edit summary in full was "snippet view doesn't give enough context to demonstrate it was the same event, and the formatting is incorrect for an FA". As it stands right now, the information is almost a classic example of SYNTH - the second and third source given state that the priest took refuge in a presbytery (with one source being totally about the church and the other implying that the presbytery meant is the residence) and the fourth source is the only source that ties the event to GFN (although the only visible part in the snippet view is that the riots took place on 5 November. Nothing in the snippet view ties the event to GFN at all.) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree (based on cursory reading) that the linkage could be stronger, and skirts (and possibly violates) WP:SYNTH. Although I don't think its that much of a stretch to say anti-catholic riots mentioned in juxtaposition to gunpoweder plot events are related. (A very analogous situation in my mind is the Kristallnacht riots being mentioned in juxtaposition to the von-rath assassination, though obviously that is a topic which later RS have made the linkage much more strongly). However, I do not hold a strong opinion on the correctness or not of the particular content as I have not read the content nor the sources claimed closely enough. I was merely commenting on the thrust of this talk section. If the content is objectionable for other reasons and there is consensus towards that end, then that is its own issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

On that last issue, this source clarifies that the phrase "the presbytery of St. Pancras Church" refers to the residence of the priest. This source from Suffolk County Council says "the ‘Anti Popery' disturbances in Ipswich in November 1863 [...] followed the Gunpowder Plot commemorations and coincided with the salacious anti-catholic lectures given by Andre Massena." -- 101.119.14.238 (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"On that last issue, this source clarifies that the phrase "the presbytery of St. Pancras Church" refers to the residence of the priest." - it does no such thing. Parrot of Doom 23:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Most people are aware that in a modern Catholic context, "presbytery" always refers to the residence of the priest(s). In this case, the cited source says "The [note the definite article] presbytery of St. Pancras Church, a two hundred year old house." This means that this is the actual building (now demolished) in which Father Patrick Rogers barricaded himself in 1863. -- 101.119.14.160 (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The writers of that newspaper article have no idea what the 1863 writers thought, just as we don't. Parrot of Doom 08:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Huh? The sources talking about the priest barricading himself in the presbytery are modern sources (from 2011). And the writers of that 1938 newspaper article were quite clear what "the presbytery of St. Pancras Church" meant. -- 101.119.15.163 (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The 1938 writers were not referring to the 1863 event. I'm completely unsurprised by your failure to understand this. Parrot of Doom 10:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The 1938 writers were referring to the place in which the 1863 event took place. And I continue to be surprised at your failure to understand how Catholics use the term "presbytery." -- 101.119.15.163 (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"The 1938 writers were referring to the place in which the 1863 event took place" - in your opinion. Last response on this matter from me, you're plainly an idiot. Parrot of Doom 11:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No, the 1938 writers were indeed referring to the place in which the 1863 event took place. There is only one St Pancras Church, Ipswich, and only one meaning for "presbytery" in a modern Catholic context. And I note your continued substitution of mindless abuse for rational argument. -- 101.119.15.163 (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

PoD : WP:NPA. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If you don't want to be called a cunt Gaijin42 then don't act like one. Eric Corbett 14:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.